Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rolex question...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Rolex question...

    So I'm going to look today and narrow down my options...but my job does a 10 year "bonus" of a Rolex at roughly a $10,500 -10,900 or so allowance....(we can pay to go over if we want, but I'd like to keep the watch free...or within a couple hundred).

    Want something versatile...so I'm looking at:

    Air King (really dig this...way under the allowance, it looks like...so not maximizing the value, but a cool and simple watch)

    GMT Master II - Like this one as well...simple watch with black dial. Weighing whether I like the all black bezel or the black/blue

    Explorer II - would probably go black dial here as well

    Cosmograph Daytona - I need to price it but I think the steel band with either black or white face is in the allowance range or close (I could be wrong...)


    Anyway - any pros or cons to any of these watches? Anyone have experience with any of them?

    Oh - also looking at the Submariner (with date) and the Sea Dweller as well.

    Today should be a learning experience...I'll meet with a sales guy and hoping to have myself down to three options after that to make the final choice from....

    #2
    New Daytona won't be in that price range, especially the brand new models with ceramic bezels, which are selling at premiums up near $16-18k. Maybe some new old stock Daytonas with stainless bezels might, but I still think those are around $12k (but haven't priced them in a couple years).

    The GMTii seems like a nice spot to land; you could also of course check out the traditional SubC Date or SD4k, both should be within or close to the price range. You could also look at a green SubC Date if you want something different. Make sure to try all the above on, if you're interested in them. Each wears a bit differently due to thickness (SD4k is thicker and weighs a bit more), cyclops (on Sub and GMTii, but not SD4k), case shape (SubC is a bit wider feeling than SD4k, as the cases are shaped slightly differently), all of which play into how they feel on your wrist. It's a quite personal choice in which feels right on your wrist. Looks different as well, obviously, but even the SD4k vs. Sub seems very similar, but looks different to some. I personally preferred (and purchased) the SD4k, as I liked the matte black/dark grey dial and no cyclops vs. the glossier look and cyclops on the Sub. YMMV.

    All those have bezels and are sports watches. Not a bad thing, just a statement. If you wanted a dressier watch (but not so dressy as being unable to be worn casually), a Datejust would work nicely, and there are a variety of colors, bezels and styles to choose from.

    And just to throw in an extra, I really like the newest iteration of the 39mm Explorer I that came out this past year. If I didn't already have the SD4k, that potentially could have won out for my first Rolex. I might still get one at some point, but have other types of watches to get first in my collection...

    Nice company to buy you a $10k watch after 10 years vs. a retirement gift or something. Good luck in your choice.

    Comment


      #3
      To add some to horsnup84, you are also in the realm of two-tone watches so DateJust's or YachtMaster's. You are a little short on the Submariner but you could always put in money. I doubt you will find a Daytona in steel and those prices are in the $12K range if you find a dealer who has one. I have tried on numerous $36K solid gold Daytona's but never a standard steel model.

      Just look at see what they offer. DateJust's have by far the most options in terms of dial and bezel. Also the Explorer I is sort of a great watch only watch guys mention.

      I personally have a GMT-II in blue/black and the blue adds just a touch of difference. You have the wear the thing so make sure it speaks to you when picking something out.

      Comment


        #4
        BLNR hands down.

        Comment


          #5
          So yes...the Daytona was about $12k.

          I have narrowed it down to: Submariner, Sea Dweller, GMT II, or the Explorer II

          I like the simpler face on the Sea Dweller (without the date magnifier). Just made it stand out to me from the other options.

          The Sub of course is a classic. The GMT is pretty cool though...and the Explorer is nice with the little touch of orange on the hands to add some color.

          Decisions, decisions...I appreciate the feedback fellas...I have some time before I have to choose...but was nice to get over and see some options, try them on, etc.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by .brian. View Post
            BLNR hands down.
            I completely spaced out and didn't even ask about this version...which I really liked in looking online. I just emailed the sales rep to ask if they have this version....I really dig the blue/black bezel.

            Thanks again for all the feedback guys.

            Comment


              #7
              If you're getting a $10,500+ head start, it's really tough to not justify spending the extra $1,500ish to get a Daytona. I'm far from a Rolex expert, but it seems like so much more watch for the money than the Sub, Sea, GMT, etc.

              I'm also a big fan of the DateJust, but it sounds like that style isn't in contention.

              Best of luck with your search!

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by wsupjs View Post
                If you're getting a $10,500+ head start, it's really tough to not justify spending the extra $1,500ish to get a Daytona. I'm far from a Rolex expert, but it seems like so much more watch for the money than the Sub, Sea, GMT, etc.
                I've never quite understood this point of view, that the Daytona is somehow so much better of a watch than other Rolex sports models, but it seems to be one that is a commonly held view. Yes, it has a chronograph (altho those are pricey to service and fix, and frankly probably not the most practical complication), but otherwise it has similar finishing, casing, etc. to every other cheaper Rolex sports model. While some may find them to be more attractive aesthetically, I personally don't think they look that fantastic (although the new ceramic ones do look rather nice), with the polished stainless bezel not really fitting the bill for me. YMMV of course.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by bobellis75 View Post
                  I completely spaced out and didn't even ask about this version...which I really liked in looking online. I just emailed the sales rep to ask if they have this version....I really dig the blue/black bezel.

                  Thanks again for all the feedback guys.
                  It was a pretty hard watch to find for a while. Not sure if it still is or not.

                  I would say the most important thing to do though, is to go to an AD and try them all on before you make a decision.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by hornsup84 View Post
                    I've never quite understood this point of view, that the Daytona is somehow so much better of a watch than other Rolex sports models, but it seems to be one that is a commonly held view. Yes, it has a chronograph (altho those are pricey to service and fix, and frankly probably not the most practical complication), but otherwise it has similar finishing, casing, etc. to every other cheaper Rolex sports model. While some may find them to be more attractive aesthetically, I personally don't think they look that fantastic (although the new ceramic ones do look rather nice), with the polished stainless bezel not really fitting the bill for me. YMMV of course.
                    Honestly, I think my big hangup is spending that kind of money on such a sporty watch. It's not that the Daytona is better quality wise, but seems more versatile than those models. OP never mentioned his watch collection or intentions for the watch besides price. If he wants a Rolex that can "do it all," (which I would at this price point), I think a Daytona or Datejust fills a wider range of needs than those models. It sounds like both are out of the running, so it's a moot point anyway.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Let me know if your company is hiring! lol

                      In all honesty, I would jump on a Daytona only because of how much out of pocket you'd have to pony up.

                      Disclaimer - I own a GMT and an Explorer. My GMT is by far my favorite of the two (or of my whole collection for that matter).


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by hornsup84 View Post
                        I've never quite understood this point of view, that the Daytona is somehow so much better of a watch than other Rolex sports models, but it seems to be one that is a commonly held view. Yes, it has a chronograph (altho those are pricey to service and fix, and frankly probably not the most practical complication), but otherwise it has similar finishing, casing, etc. to every other cheaper Rolex sports model. While some may find them to be more attractive aesthetically, I personally don't think they look that fantastic (although the new ceramic ones do look rather nice), with the polished stainless bezel not really fitting the bill for me. YMMV of course.
                        I think it's a self-perpetuating supply and demand thing, where people want the Daytona because they think that it's more rare or more prestigious or more expensive, and that increased demand actually causes it become more rare and expensive. I agree with you that there isn't any significant difference in the build quality between a Daytona other Rolex sports models, but I tend to think of chronographs as the most difficult to produce out of the simple complications (date, moonphase, annual calendar, chronograph, dual time zone). I'm not a watchmaker or a movement expert by any means so it's not like I have any direct factual evidence, but looking at the way that top tier brands price their simple complication watches, the chronograph tends to be the most expensive: ALS 1815 chronograph retails for 50k while the ALS 1815 annual calendar (which also has a moonphase) goes for 40k. In addition to the pricing aspect, the general sense I get from watch forums and blogs (the number of posts or articles drooling over in-house manual chronograph movements) is that a well-executed chronograph movement is one of the most beautiful. It's certainly not the most practical, but considering the fact that Rolex doesn't do grand complications, the chronograph complication means that it becomes one of Rolex's top tier watches in terms of complexity. Also doesn't hurt that the Daytona is still associated with Paul Newman.

                        To bring this post back on-topic somewhat, I'd avoid the current Daytona. The new ceramic one looks much nicer, but it's also much further out of your budget.
                        Instagram: WoofOrWeft

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I'm not a watch expert, so I'm curious if anyone knows if the maintenance costs are different from one of these watches to the next (eg: more expensive for a chronograph), and how much?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Spex View Post
                            I'm not a watch expert, so I'm curious if anyone knows if the maintenance costs are different from one of these watches to the next (eg: more expensive for a chronograph), and how much?
                            Yep chronograph service costs are higher compared to a simple two hander. Depending on the manufacturer, up to 2x the cost.


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                            Instagram: WoofOrWeft

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Token View Post
                              I think it's a self-perpetuating supply and demand thing, where people want the Daytona because they think that it's more rare or more prestigious or more expensive, and that increased demand actually causes it become more rare and expensive. I agree with you that there isn't any significant difference in the build quality between a Daytona other Rolex sports models, but I tend to think of chronographs as the most difficult to produce out of the simple complications (date, moonphase, annual calendar, chronograph, dual time zone). I'm not a watchmaker or a movement expert by any means so it's not like I have any direct factual evidence, but looking at the way that top tier brands price their simple complication watches, the chronograph tends to be the most expensive: ALS 1815 chronograph retails for 50k while the ALS 1815 annual calendar (which also has a moonphase) goes for 40k. In addition to the pricing aspect, the general sense I get from watch forums and blogs (the number of posts or articles drooling over in-house manual chronograph movements) is that a well-executed chronograph movement is one of the most beautiful. It's certainly not the most practical, but considering the fact that Rolex doesn't do grand complications, the chronograph complication means that it becomes one of Rolex's top tier watches in terms of complexity. Also doesn't hurt that the Daytona is still associated with Paul Newman.

                              To bring this post back on-topic somewhat, I'd avoid the current Daytona. The new ceramic one looks much nicer, but it's also much further out of your budget.
                              I generally agree with what you're saying, but I think it furthers the point I was trying to get across -- Just because it's a chronograph doesn't make it an inherently better watch, even if it's costlier, harder to find, etc. And while I concur that high end chrono movements are delightful, especially in terms of those that are decorated and shown off, the Rolex one is (great and a workhorse, but) bland and hidden behind a caseback.

                              If you want novel or interesting complication from Rolex, the YM2 or Skydweller are actually quite delightful (and in ways novel, or were when they originally came out), if you can get past their gaudy appearance.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X